You used to be mormon, you know that would violate the concept of free agency because we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, it would be forced upon us.

the problem with that logic is that, they can beam the knowledge into their head, and then they can then be judged according to their works, not for believing or not. it would level the playing field, and give everyone an equal opportunity, which would allow god to truly separate the "wheat" from the "tares" if you will.

I remember the mormon faith judges based on both, but this system is much fairer for everyone.

I agree with the bottom statement, many, many religious people are dumb and stupid, because their faith is based on ignorance. And I think religion does have evidence, it's just evidence that is attributed to other events, or is exceptionally hard to prove.

If religion had evidence it wouldn't need faith. Faith is by it's very nature ignorance. Faith by definition is belief without proof/evidence. That means you're believing something without knowing if what you're believing in is true or not. Since you lack knowledge due to lacking proof, you therefore are by definition ignorant if you are going on faith.

Mormons have a different view of the whole "wrong religion HELL AND ****ATION" thing. We think that, if we pretend all religion is true, that other religions have truth, just not all of it. Like a really, really big pie, and every religion takes a small slice, but that it was fully restored and the mormon (LDS) faith has it all. And we're not like "HURHURHUR WE BETTER JESUS HALLELUJAH SPIRITS AMEN". We want to give everybody a chance to hear it, not keep it to ourselves and be *****.

Saying each religion has a piece of the truth doesn't work given the wildly contradicting nature of religions. Also since non of it is evidence based there is no metric to determine what the truths are. Not to mention every religion claims to be the one with all the truth.

Saying you have the truth based on faith is ridiculous for the above reason of what faith is.

I thought you don't believe in God? How can a mysterious figure you don't believe in accomplish anything if he's a figment of human imagination?

From all observation we don't actually see God accomplishing anything.

A very valid point. Now, Mormons (I can't speak for other christian sects) believe that He's actually trying to shout it out, though obviously not in a super easy cloud writing way, because that would abolish the concept of faith and such.

So abolish the concept of faith, it's a horrible concept anyway as a means of belief.

I believe he is trying incredibly hard because he loves all of you,

Again if we are dealing with an omnipotent being nothing could be regarded as hard for him.

You used to be mormon, you know that would violate the concept of free agency because we wouldn't have a choice in the matter, it would be forced upon us.

Having knowledge doesn't destroy free will. It simply means I can better evaluate a situation and come to a decision based on what is factual.

It's the same as if this were an "Iron Man vs Batman" thread. In those, no one is claiming they exist, but you can discuss their conceptual attributes/abilities/accomplishments.

True, true, I'll give you that.

If God existed, why CAN'T he do this? IF he existed and had the traits that believers claimed, he WOULD do something like that to prevent people from suffering. Since he hasn't, it's logical to reason that he DOESN'T exist.

It's like I've said to blade, without evil and chaos, we would not know order and good. It's not like he enjoys all this happening, but it needs to. We need to be able to exercise our free agency. Maybe he needs those people killed to come back to him sooner. Maybe it's a test of our faith (or lack of) and reactions to these problems.

the problem with that logic is that, they can beam the knowledge into their head, and then they can then be judged according to their works, not for believing or not. it would level the playing field, and give everyone an equal opportunity, which would allow god to truly separate the "wheat" from the "tares" if you will.

I remember the mormon faith judges based on both, but this system is much fairer for everyone.

But in the exact same standpoint, we are not fit, nor worthy to judge our fellow man. It is not our place to do so.

If religion had evidence it wouldn't need faith. Faith is by it's very nature ignorance. Faith by definition is belief without proof/evidence. That means you're believing something without knowing if what you're believing in is true or not. Since you lack knowledge due to lacking proof, you therefore are by definition ignorant if you are going on faith.

But with evidence, faith does not exist. We would all be christian, we would all be good, and nothing would happen. We would not learn from our mistakes nor accomplish anything.

Again if we are dealing with an omnipotent being nothing could be regarded as hard for him.

It is if he acts through people, because people have the power of choice and are quite fickle.

Exactly, it seems you're advocating that being ignorant is some how a positive thing here. Faith is not a good thing to have to go on. It's the last thing to look toward if at all. Any system that requires faith is likely just out to con you.

We would all be christian, we would all be good, and nothing would happen. We would not learn from our mistakes nor accomplish anything.

No that wouldn't be what would happen. Just because someone is Christian doesn't mean they are good. We would still be able to make mistakes and accomplish all sorts of things. We would simply have a better understanding of reality that we could base our actions on.

It is if he acts through people, because people have the power of choice and are quite fickle.

No that's just lame excuse as to why we don't see evidence of him doing jack or squat. If he was omnipotent working through a flawed system is no excuse as that is not means by which an omnipotent being would need to do things.

I realize science is the go to option for combating religious inconsistency, however, I would like to approacch this from my area of expertise, history.

See, historians require hard evidence in order to draw any form of meaningful conclusions, however, unlike scientists, historians have to make assumptions more often. This is mainly because historians have fewer resources at hand in order to prove something. That is not to say historians take things on faith, we simply have to make conclusions with what we have, this is especially true when dealing with ancient cultures.

for example, we know a lot about the Romans because they kept a great many records. We know very little about Britain from 400-600 AD (roughly) because those records either do not exist or were destroyed. What does this have to do with religion?

Well, the bible may be considered a historical document of sorts. The problem with the bible however is its age. Throughout the bible's history it has been revised, edited, translated, reconfigured and rewritten uncountable times. This represents a major problem when trying to determine anything from the bible. Especially when we compare the Old and New Testaments. See, historians can verify that the Old Testament is highly inacurate, with maybe one or two points of interest for those dealing with ancient cultures. How do we know this? Well, there;s no other supporting evidence. Also, the OT is basically Judaism. So historians safely can say the OT is inaccurate. The problem is the NT.

The New Testament provides historians with a major headache . See, historians cannot claim that Jesus wasn't real. That's not how these things work. See someone had to inspire people to write about these events. Muhamed was the trigger for Islam, so who was the trigger for Christianity? History shows that people record those who inspire changes in their societies and cultures. Well, the answer is: historians don't know. Historians have concluded basically 2 things for sure: 1) there was someone who preached 2) the bible was severely delayed in being written.

What brings us to this conclusion? Roman records. Romans were obsessive about their record keeping, and we haven't found anything indicating a preacher around Jesus's time. Though some historians suspect he may have preached 100-200 years before the time the bible states. Why? Well back then it took a lot for religious eal to spread, also Romans hated Christianity until the Empire officially adopted it, and even then...

So, overall my point is that religion doesn't have a leg to stand on. And this isn't science, this is simple historical analysis. My evidence comes from where your "evidence" comes from. The difference is that I have support for my claims.

No that's just lame excuse as to why we don't see evidence of him doing jack or squat. If he was omnipotent working through a flawed system is no excuse as that is not means by which an omnipotent being would need to do things.

Well I'm not God now Am I? I don't know his every thought and agenda, but I do know why he doesn't just pop down here. I'm pretty sure I've already said this like twice, if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing. Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

Those are some Good points though Wolf.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe. I'll say it again, NEVER BELIEVE. What I'm getting at is if Jesus came down and preformed a dozen different miracles for you, you'd rationalize each one of them. "Oh, he's just knowledgeable with physics and optical illusions". This is a completely fruitless debate, as nothing I can say will convince you, and nothing you can say will convince me.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe.

Given proper, credible evidence I'd believe. The problem is I lack the ability to take things on faith. And this isn't just a religious thing, I quite literally do not believe anything until I can see it for myself.

and nothing you can say will convince me

See, this is our difference. Given evidence we would change our minds and accept what you're saying. However, you refuse to change yours no matter what we show you. That is the halmark of ignorance.

if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing.

How would knowing he exists take our choice away? Further, haven't you said earlier that people feel God in their own way? Wouldn't that be the same thing?

If someone gives you a plate of macaroni and cheese, you don't have to eat it. We would still have a 'choice' (not that it ever was one in the way you're saying) on whether to follow said figure. The only difference would be, God wouldn't be rewarding only the gullible for following him.

Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

I could list a number of things that would instantly make me deeply consider the existence of a god. Less things that would make me instantly consider the existence of the Christian god. Very few things that would make me instantly consider Mormonism as the correct version.

Point is, I'm far from being unable to change sides. I only ask for evidence, of which there is currently none.

In the end, however, it doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you want because you will never believe.

Sure I would. God should know exactly what those things are that would make me consider believing in him, too.

How is it taking away someone's choices in life to show them that, in fact, something does exist? Truth is the truth. If he exists regardless of whether we believe in him, then he's doing us NO favor by continuing to hide.

This is a completely fruitless debate, as nothing I can say will convince you, and nothing you can say will convince me.

No, there are plenty of things that can convince us. It's fruitless because you're plugging your ears and being a regurgitory device. No matter what happens, you will not listen to us. Whereas all you have to do is provide some kind of logical or physical evidence that supports the existence of a god.

Not personal testimonies.Not vague claims on everyone being somewhat right.Not reading from your book where these claims come from.Not claims of how God loves us.Etc.

Well I'm not God now Am I? I don't know his every thought and agenda, but I do know why he doesn't just pop down here.

Statements like that always make me think of this.

I'm pretty sure I've already said this like twice, if He was poppin' down here we'd lose our power of choice, which is the most important thing.

No that's a load of crap. We wouldn't lose our power of choice. We would still be able to choose if we wanted to follow/worship this being or not. We would just be able to make those decision based on factual evidence rather than hearsay.

Not to mention if we are to go by what we get out of the Bible we can see that God appearing to people robs them of nothing. as he does it all the time, or was it just okay for then but not now? Interesting how the miracles and appearances stop just as soon as we are capable of critical examination.

Plus, if he did, none of you guys would believe anyways because you'd find ways to attempt and explain every sign he'd show you.

Yes we would and if God was the real deal he would be fully capable of passing that examination revealing that he is who he says he is and can do what he claims. You keep clinging to ignorance like it's a good thing.

How heartless can we be to challenge the established dogma!How dare we ask questions of that which is to not be questioned!How dare we demand evidence when non can be offered!Why not just stop thinking and blindly follow in step!

It's because we aren't heartless, we care very much about the truth.That's why we ask questions and want reasonable answers to them.It's why we demand evidence before we could ever accept a claim so extraordinary.It's why we can't just stop thinking and blindly follow.

How heartless can we be to challenge the established dogma!How dare we ask questions of that which is to not be questioned!How dare we demand evidence when non can be offered!Why not just stop thinking and blindly follow in step!

It's because we aren't heartless, we care very much about the truth.That's why we ask questions and want reasonable answers to them.It's why we demand evidence before we could ever accept a claim so extraordinary.It's why we can't just stop thinking and blindly follow.

While I do not agree with this, I must say that it's written splendidly. Did you write it, Mage?

We strive to deliver the best gaming experiences... on the internet and on your mobile phone. Play thousands of free online games for kids, get access to free mmorpg games, online rpg games, fun online flash games, and more.